Disposed

R.Soundarya v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, (Madurai Range)

Madras HC2 Jul 2025WP Crl.(MD)/382/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought emergency leave for her convict husband, imprisoned under the NDPS Act, to attend their children's ear piercing ceremony. Though the prison rules barred emergency leave for such convicts, the High Court held it retained power and directed grant of two days' escorted emergency leave on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Two days' emergency leave with escort granted to the petitioner's husband for 08-09.07.2025, subject to conditions including bearing escort costs and compliance reporting.

R.Soundarya Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Prison… — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.382 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶7

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.382 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.106 of 2025

R.Soundarya

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, (Madurai Range), (Prison and Correctional Services), Madurai.

¶12

2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in No.651/U.Tha.2/2025 dated 24.06.2025 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents to release the petitioner's husband namely Ravi, S/o.Chellakannu(C.P.No.1275, PID No.284856) on ordinary leave / emergency leave for 10 days for arranging money and to attend ear piercing ceremony on 09.07.2025 at Bala

¶15

Page 1 of 7

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.382 of 2025

¶18

Maragathammal Mahal, Sellur, Madurai City.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.)

¶22

The order dated 19.05.2025, passed by the first respondent, rejecting the petitioner's request for grant of ordinary leave, is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶23

The writ petitioner is the husband of the convict prisoner and for attending the ear piercing ceremony for her children, she has sought for 10 days emergency leave to the convict prisoner.

¶24

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that since the petitioner was convicted under NDPS Act, he is not entitled for emergency leave. Further, as per Rule 21(h) 3 of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, the convict prisoner is not entitled for emergency leave. Hence, the respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner.

¶25

Page 2 of 7

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.382 of 2025

¶28

4.Though as per the Rule the convict prisoner is not eligible for leave, that would not denude the powers of this Court to grant emergency leave.

¶29

5.Recording the submission made by the learned Additional Public

¶30

Prosecutor and considering the purpose for which the leave sought is for, we are inclined to direct the respondents to grant two days emergency leave to the petitioner's husband with sufficient escort.

¶31

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶32

(i) The respondents are directed to grant two days emergency leave to the petitioner's husband, namely, Ravi, S/o.Chellakannu (C.P.No.1275, PID No.284856) ie., 08.07.2025 to 09.07.2025. The convict prisoner shall be released from the prison on 07.07.2025 at 05.30 p.m.

¶33

(ii) He shall report back to the Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai / second respondent, by 10.07.2025 at 10.30 a.m.,

¶34

(iii) Necessary escort shall be provided to accompany the convict prisoner.

¶35

Page 3 of 7

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.382 of 2025

¶38

(iv) The escort charges shall be borne by the petitioner and if necessary, the same shall be adjusted from the income earned by the convict prisoner during the imprisonment period.

¶39

(v) The petitioner shall produce all necessary documents, along with a copy of this order, before the jail authorities,

¶40

(vi) During the leave period, the convict prisoner shall abide by all the conditions prescribed in the Jail Manual.

¶41

(vii) No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶42

7.List the matter on 11.07.2025 “for reporting compliance”.

¶43

[A.D.J.C., J.] & [R.P., J.] 02.07.2025

¶44

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No NS

¶45

Note:Issue order copy on 04.07.2025

¶46

Page 4 of 7

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.382 of 2025

¶49

¶50

1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, (Madurai Range), (Prison and Correctional Services), Madurai.

¶51

2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.

¶52

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶53

Page 5 of 7

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.382 of 2025

¶56

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

AND

R.POORNIMA , J.

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.382 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.106 of 2025

¶61

Page 6 of 7

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.382 of 2025

¶64

02.07.2025

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

Page 7 of 7

R.Soundarya v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, (Madurai Range)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Soundarya v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, (Madurai Range)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhavya Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

H.Jahaber Sathik Vs The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by

Sabitha Vs The State of Tamilnadu

R.Velammal Vs The State of Tamilnadu

S.Avudaiyatchi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P. Alagu Vs The State of Tamil Nadu